From the New York Daily News, a Long Island, N.Y. couple has recently applied for a trademark registration for (you guessed it) “OCCUPY WALL ST.” The application was filed on October 18 as an intent-to-use (ITU) application, listing a variety of products including clothing, bags, and bumper stickers.

Depending on your outlook on things, it’s temping to be cynical (perhaps even from both “sides” of the aisle) at first, and I’ll admit that was my first reaction. Moving beyond that reaction, though, I think that both the protesters and their critics can (at lease hopefully) agree that small business and entrepreneurship are vital to our economy. And Robert Maresca (who appears to have filed under his wife’s name) is certainly an entrepreneur.

But I think there’s even more going on here. Take a look at what Mr.Maresca, himself an injured ironworker and union member, told the Daily News of his idea to register the mark:

“People are calling this a crass attempt to profiteer off a social movement, but that’s not it [.] I do believe there’s a possibility it could become a global brand. I could maintain control to keep it from someone trying to undercut the 99% [.] [The trademark] “isn’t about me getting rich. If it turns into a big moneymaker, I would like some of it to go back to the group.”

Sometimes, it’s not about the money (as UK pop-singer Jessie J so catchily reminded us 156 million times or so, according to YouTube). Sometimes it’s about principle.

Much of my non-trademark work centers on working with nonprofits. And when nonprofit clients ask me trademark questions, I try to distinguish the sort of interests nonprofits and for-profits would have in trademark protection. For nonprofits, there’s not such a clear “good branding equals more revenue” correlation. For them, it’s about their message and making sure that that message is protected and not tarnished, maligned, or confused by those with conflicting values.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “OCCUPY WALL ST.™”

“People are calling this a crass attempt to profiteer off a social movement

*It is. And tone deaf to boot.

, but that’s not it [.]

*Yes, it is.

I do believe there’s a possibility it could become a global brand.

*Already has without your help.

I could maintain control to keep it from someone trying to undercut the 99% [.]

*Nobody asked you to. If they did, they didn’t represent everyone in NYC, Oakland, Dallas, Austin, Columbus, London, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Paris, etc., etc., etc., etc. And since the model of Occupy Wall Street is based on consensus, you absolutely ARE trying to undercut the 99%.

“isn’t about me getting rich. If it turns into a big moneymaker, I would like some of it to go back to the group.”

* I would like to be Batman. See how that statement is just a little different than “I will be Batman.” One statement actually holds me accountable if I do not transcend my mediocrity and become the Dark Knight. Also, how much is “some” anyway?

For nonprofits, there’s not such a clear “good branding equals more revenue” correlation. For them, it’s about their message and making sure that that message is protected and not tarnished, maligned, or confused by those with conflicting values.

* OWS has consciously decided to hold off on issuing a definite message (so far). And, in a way, that has protected them from being tarnished or maligned. Filing for a 501(c) or whatever the hell it’s called an slapping a trademark on the movement won’t be good for them and will open them up to even more criticism than they’ve been facing.

* I’ve been thinking of doing some trademarking myself. I see the potential of Human Rights as having the potential to become a global brand. Not to make money, of course. And I know just the Trademark Lawyer for the job!

Daniel – you make a good point that emphasizes the varied values inherent in a trademark registration. Other than giving the right to exclude unauthorized use and profiting by licensing that into authorized use, the (R) will allow the rights holder to preserve the integrity of the mark and the message. I find the quote that some profits may go back to the group because of the difficult in identifying the group. I walked through Zucotti Park a few weeks ago on a trip to NYC and even there, in a group that small, had difficulty differentiating members. Spread that out to the 99% of Americans, and I think giving back to the group is a difficult thing.

I saw a follow-up AP article this morning in my local paper that noted Trademark Office filings had exploded for 99% / Occupy – related marks.

LEGAL NOTICE (what’s a law blog without one?)

The contents of this blog are the opinions of Eric Davis, an attorney at Elliott & Davis, PC and constitute attorney advertising on behalf of Eric Davis. They are not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. Please consult an attorney before acting upon any information provided on this blog. The transmission of information and/or communications taking place on this blog do not create an attorney client relationship.